Idiosyncratic Development of Receptive and Free Active Vocabulary:

MUSTAFA YILDIZ

doi:10.33541/jet.v8i1.3319

MUSTAFA YILDIZ Sinop University, Turkey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v8i1.3319

Keywords: Lexical Frequency Profile, Vocabulary Size Test, receptive vocabulary, free active productive vocabulary

Abstract

The present study seeks to explain the role of different essay types and proficiency level based on receptive vocabulary knowledge on learners’ free active vocabulary. The study includes the works done in a 15-week academic term by 26 EFL students with C1 level English proficiency. At the beginning of the research, the participants are applied Vocabulary Size Test (Nation & Beglar, 2007) to determine their receptive vocabulary knowledge and divided into two groups according to their results from VST: the more proficient group who master 8000 or more word families and the less proficient group who master less than 8000 word families. Throughout the semester, they have written two essays on each of two different essay types: comparison-contrast essay and cause-effect essay. In order to determine the participants’ free active vocabulary, two different scores, i.e., detailed Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer and Nation, 1995) and condensed Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer, 1995), are calculated in the writings of the participants. The results indicate that neither essay types nor proficiency based on receptive vocabulary knowledge has any significant effect on learners’ free active productive vocabulary.

References

Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessment of foreign student’s writing. RELC Journal, 24, 61-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400104

Cobb, T. Web VP Classic v.4 [computer program]. Accessed 15 July 2021 at https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951

Gregori-Signes, C., & Clavel-Arroitia, B. (2015). Analysing lexical density and lexical diversity in university students’ written discourse. 7th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics: Current Work in Corpus Linguistics: Working with Traditionally-conceived Corpora and Beyond (CILC 2015). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198, 546 – 556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.47

Harkio, N., & Pietilä, P. (2016). The role of vocabulary breadth and depth in reading comprehension: A quantitative study of Finnish EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(6), 1079-1088. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0706.03

Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12560354

Jacobs, H.L., Zingraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F., & Hughey, J.B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, 316-323. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P.J.L. Arnaud & H. Be´joint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, 126–132. London: Macmillan.

Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25(2), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202

Laufer, B. (1995). Beyond 2000: A measure of productive lexicon in a second language. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. S. Smith (Eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage, 265-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.255

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00046

Lemmouh, Z. (2008). The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 163-180. http://doi.org/10.35360/njes.106

Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing Lexical Frequency Profiles across drafts. System, 30, 225-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00006-4

Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cml.2006.0049

Nation, I.S.P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-13.

Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00193

Rashidi. N., & Khosravi, N. (2010). Assessing the role of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 81-108.

Stæhr, L.S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing, The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-152, https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975

Stæhr, L.S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577-607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039

Teng, F. (2014). Assessing the depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge with listening comprehension. PASAA, 48, 29-56.

Xue G., & Nation, I. S P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3(2), 215-229.

Idiosyncratic Development of Receptive and Free Active Vocabulary

To what extent do essay types and receptive vocabulary contribute to the lexical richness?

Abstract

References